Forest Service documents and Jordan correspondence.

UNOTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGROCUL T~ Ptg o ~
FOREST SERVICE
Teton National Forest, Box 1888, Jackrs.o·n,- .W-y-oming. ,6 3001' ,-,
~} ., 2310
March 1, 1972
r
Honorable Len B. Jordan
Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510 e
L
Dear Len:
The Forest Service is making a national review of undeveloped areas
on National Forest land. As part of this review, the Teton National
Forest has completed a preliminary inventory and has identified 29
areas totaling about 742,000 acres.
During the next month and a half, public meetings will be held to
obtain public sentiment and recommendations on how these areas should
be managed. Written statements will be received until April 7, 1972
for consideration. The enclosed packet of information concerning
this study and analysis was sent to approximately 125 individuals and
organizations in Wyoming and throughout the United States inviting
comments.
The packet is provided for your information. If you wish to make
specific comments or recommendations, of course, they would be most
welcome too.
Final results of the analysis will be announced by the Chief of the
Forest Service shortly after June 30, 1972.
Sincerely,
\.M-(=~
cflARLES T, COSTON
Forest Supervisor
Enclosures
IWJG-11 (1/69)
·~ ;
\
A SUGGESTED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
POR PRIVATE FORESTS
IN THE UNITED STATES
A. Forward. OUtlined herein is a suggested management program for private
forests in the United States. The program concept was originally developed
by Vernon H. Burlison, University of Idaho Extension Forester, as a proposal
to consider for small-private woodlands. The original program suggestion
was critically reviewed by the Idaho Interagency Forestry Committee11, by the
Forestry Committee of the Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts,
plus several other organizations and many individuals. This draft incor­porates
constructive &UtJ9estions made by those Who reviewed the proposed
program.
In the design of a public program to obtain improved management on private
forests, the matter of its fairness to all concerned interests must be con­sidered.
noes it infringe upon the individual rights of private forest
owners? Does it reduce work opportunities for private consulting foresters?
Does it harm local governments through an adverse effect an the tax base?
Does it hinder wood industries in their procurement of raw materials? Does
it reduce values and uses (recreation, wildlife, watershed, esthetic) the
general public might reasonably expect from private forests for given oon-siderat~?
·
It was recognized in the development of this proposed program that (1) the
flow of benefits from private forests can be greatly increased by more inten­sive
management and (2) the diseconomies of small-private fOrest ownership
virtually preclude long-term investments in forest practices. The contention
is: Society through government can give to small-private forest owners
assistance that will make long-term management of woodlands practical and it
can be done in a manner that is fair to all concerned interests.
Valid pUblic uses of and benefits from private forests can be achieved with­out
infringement upon individual owners' rights. The management integrity
of owners can be protected rather than their being forced into untimely
timber sales or subdivision of their lands for short-term economic gain.
Management commensurate with land capability can be applied by consulting
foresters providing a large share of the needed professional assistance and
private contracting crews doing the woods work. The woodland tax base can
be improved and rural economy strengthened.
The suggested proqram is based on these tenets:
1. The nation's increasing needs for wood, plus other forest products
and uses, cannot adequately be met without markedly increasing the
level of productivity from small-private woodlands.
l)
The Idaho Interagency Forestry Committee represents all the agencies
that have direct proqram interest in small-private forestry: Western WOOd
Products Association, the Northern aM Intermountain R89iona of the United
States Forest Service, SOil Conservation Service, Farmers HOme Administration,
Rural Environmental Assistance Program, Bureau of Land Management, Forestry
Division of the Idaho Department of Public Lands, Idaho Association of SOil
Conservation oi,tricts, Idaho Department of·Pish an4 Game, the Cooperative
Extension serVice, and the Forest, Wildlife & Range Experiment Station of the
University of Idaho. The Committee promotes interagency cooperation and
coordination of effort in small-private forestry programs.
. .,.
.I
)
-2-
2. various reasons a large majority of small-private owners are
unable to apply the intensive level of manaqement needed to make
their woodlands produce close to what they are capable of producing.
3. Manaqement of forests for sustained wood production in most in­stances
has a beneficial influence upon their other resource values:
soil protection, watershed, wildlife, recreation, foraqe, esthetics.
4. Due to 11 - t3 above, it appears reaaonabl8 that our society
(throuqh ita qovernment) could offer to the small-private woodland
owners a proqram designed to accomplish the needed increase in wood•
lane! productivity and to provide increased woodland income to owners.
B. Pmram Juatification. These facta are believed to justify the need for
serious consideration of implementinq a pro~ram of the type herein sugqested:
1. People of the United States are strongly aware of the great need
for upqrading the quality of our environment and for making better
use of our natural renewable resources. Broad scale intenaive manage­ment
of a large segment of the nation's small-private woodlands would;
a. greatly increase woodland esthetic values,
b. reduce aoil erosion losses on woodlands,
c. benefit various forms of wildlife throuqh resultinq improve­ment
of their habitats,
d. result in better protection of watersheds, thereby improvinq
stream r89'imen, aquatic habitat and water quality.
e. enhance woodland recreational values,
f. contribute to improved air quality because well-managed
woodlands with vigorous trees are more efficient oxygen pro­ducers
than are woodlands in poor candition,
g. qreatly reduce timber losses on woodlands to fire, insecta
and diseases.
2. The nation needs liiOOd. Predictions are that twice aa much wood will
be needed by the year 2000 as was used in 1968. It is contended. that
our future wood needs cannot be met without greatly increasing the pro­duction
on a substantial portion of the 300,000,000 acres of small­private
woodlands in bhia coUJ\try. (NOTE: 'I'he small-private woodlAnds
constitute 59 percent of our commercial forest lands, contain 38 percent
of the growing stock, and yield 49 percent of the cut. These fiqures
show that the timber-producing capacity of a large segment of our forest
lan4 is being further depleted.. On the other hand., the small-private
forests largely occupy sites with higher productive potential than other
ownership classes. Under intensive management these small private for­ests
could be brouqht to a level of production by the year 2000 which
could supply a very significant portion of our total estimated needs
for wood. This would be at a growth level within reasonable attainment
under intensive management.)
3. Rural ~conomy n.,a. to be strengthened.
-~
,,
-3-
a• Rural development is one of the foremost needs of the nation
--improved levels of income, increased job opportunities, and
better livinq conditions. Many of the areas most in need of
rural development have significant acreages of small-private
woodlands. This proqram should have the effect of greatly re­ducing
the movement of low-inc:ome rural people to urban slums.
Each 25,000-acre unit under the program would create about 35
full-time jobs, 31 of which would be woods laborers (these
visualized as small private contracting crews), in areas that
are traditionally low income and that are now making use of
special federal assistance programs. The labor force that
would be needed for the program makes it appear feasible that
the woodland management proqram could be coordinated with the
proposed youth corps program. If two-thirds of the small­private
woodlands were to be brought under intensive management,
the task would be sufficient to employ 208,000 laborers indef­initely.
In addition to the employment potential, the program
would generate much additional economic activity due to the
increased needs for many types of woods equipment and various
other materials and services required by woods workers.
b. Income levels of small-private woodland owners wouid be sig­nificantly
increased through the annual lease fees based on
their woodlands' predicted yields under intensive management.
It also seems very likely that the higher quality of timber and
the opportunity for poolinq woodland harvest cuts to make larger
volume sales should also improve woodland owners' incomes.
(!Q!!: This program should have high appeal to owners because
it does provide them an annual income from their woodlands which
should be much more desirable than infrequent periodic returns;
also, it would guarantee that needed management practices would
be applied on cooperators' woodlands, another very desirable
feature since most owners would like to see their woodlands
being managed. At meetings and through a mailed questionnaire
in three northern Idaho counties, a significant number of wood­land
owners have indicated they would participate in this program
if it were implemented.)
c. Wood industries that procure raw materials from small-private
woodland owners would be benefitted because they eould each deal
with one or a few management units rather than with dozens to
hundreds of individual owners. They soon would be getting higher
quality products due to the effects of management.
4. Programs that have offered educational assistance, technical advice
and services, and cost-share incentives have not significantly improved
the level of management practiced on small-private woodlands. It is
unlikely that these approaches will ever be effective with a larqe
majority of small-private woodland owners because the actual application
of management is still left to the individual owner as his responsib­ility.
Most woodland owners cannot apply management on an intensive
scale due to one or more of the following reasons:
a. Many owners, even though they are conservation minded, do
not have the time to do the needed management work in their
woodlands due to the requirements of their farm or other
business, their job or ~fession.
·-,
1
.~f
-4-
b. sane owners cannot do their. woodland work due to age or
health reasons.
e. Others are absentee owners who cannot personally care for
their woodland due to the distance between where they live
and where their woodlands are located.
d. Very few woodland owners are financially able to have the
needed work in their woodlands done by hire and carry that
cost as an investment until they can harvest a timber crop.
Those who could afford it do not find lonq-terrn woodland
management investments attractive due to the expected low
rate of interest return, the fixed nature of the investment
until the timber becomes merchantable, an4 the risks (fire,
insects, diseases, storms or weather, and uncertainty regardinq
timber prices) incurred for the period of the investment.
e. Due to financial needs, woodland owners sometimes are forced
to c:ut their woodlands prematurely or to overcut them, even
though they may have been trying to practice gooc:! management:
i.e., they are forced to compromise their management integrity.
5. At the beginning this program would complement rather than duplicate
on-going programs of assistance to small-private woodland owners. In
some areas it would eventually lessen the need for or even supplant
some ~esent forme of assistance, in which cases the unneeded assistance
should be withdrawn.
6. This program would be effective toward the implementation of several
of the recOCDmendations made by the PUblic Land Law Review COIIUilission.
7. Though the initial coat of implementing this program might appear to
be high, all public money invested should eventually be returned. If
efficiently administered, the program should become self-supporting
within a period of 30 years. (NOTE: Consideration could be given to
providing incentive awards to managing organizatiOns for efficient
administration of the program. This would help insure that the program
would become self-supporting as quickly as possible.)
c. Provisions of the Suggested Prosram. This is mainly what the program
would do:
1. Designate a managing agency or organization for small-private
woodlands.
2. Authorize the managing agency to negotiate long-term management
leases and marketing contracts with small-private woodland owners.
Under such . •greements the managing agency would apply the needed
woodland management practices and provide marketing services. This
would not prohibit any owner from bidding competitively for the job
of implementing the management practices called for on his own
woodland.
3. Prov~de for the payment of annual lease fees to woodland owners
who put their lands under contract with the managing agency, the
amounts of such fees to be determined by the productivity of the
woodlands Under intensive management and the periods of the contracts.
··-,
J I,
• -s-
4. Provide that with justification a woodland owner or his heirs can
buy out his contract :by making reimbursement for the costs of all
mana9ement practices that have been applied. in his woodland and for
all lease fees that have been paid to him, plus 3\ interest compounded
annually from the dates management costs were incurred and lease fees
were paid.
5. Provide insurance against woodland losseis due to fire, inaects,
disease and storm.
6. Provide low interest loans for woodland owners w lO elect to, do
their own woodland manaqement under an approved management plan.
D. Explanation Related to the Provisions. This section .is to help clarify
the meaninq of some of the provisions that were stated briefly above.
1. The managing aqency coul.d :be an established public &c.Jency, such as
the State Forestry Department or its equivalent in Uf!h state where
the proqram became operative. It presently appears t:.lAt the most
appropriate course would be to designate the state roreatry aepartmant
or its equivalent in each state as the state level managing agency~
The state agency could contract for other responsible bodies (such as
cooperatives of woodland owners, forestry asaociations, or private
corporations) to assume the implementation of the program within given
uni ta or areas~
2~ a~ ~he basic management-lease agreement would provide that the
managing agency would assume the responsibility of doing all
thinning and other improvement work needed in the woodland~
It would define the management objectives (i.e., the timber
crops to be produced and the other benefits expected from the
woodland) and provide tba t timber sales would be made under the
auspices of the managing agency with the consent of the owner~
The aqreement would specify the amount of the annual lease fee
to be paid to the owner. A woodland management plan with speci­fications
for the management work to be done would be the basis
for the aqreement which would specify when the various management
jobs would be completed~
b. There would also be an agreement for woodland owners who de­sire
to do their own woodland work and who are competent ·to do
it. Under such agreement the owner would have to develop (with
assistance available) a management plan that would be acceptable
to the managinq agency. The contract would require the owner to
complete his work to specifications acceptable to the managing
agency~ This would be an agre-ement quite similar to the form of
the basic agreement, but specifying the owner rather than the
managing agency as being responsible for the woodland work.
c. Thouqh this proposed program is focused on the problem of low
p~uotivity of small-private woodlands, the concept is appli­cable
to lAr9e private ownerships, indut~trial and otherwise.
Agreements with larqe private owners could be the same general
nature as those negotiated with small owners.
d. Reasonable public use privileges, such as hiking, picnickinq,
camping, hunting and fishing, when allowable would be defined in
~
:•!P
'
-6-
the agreements. Since the lease payments made to owners would
be similar in nature to loans until such times as their timber
is harvested. and since other government loans do not require
recipients to allow public use of their lands, forest land
owners under this program ahould retain the right to r9qulate,
restrict or even prohibit all public uses of their properties.
NOTE: In any instance wherein a wooclland has very qood natural
~lities for outdoor recreation in an area where there is a
definite need for expanded public opportunities for outdoor
recreation, the lease agreement may be wholly for the purpose of
developnent and maintenance of the woodland's recreational re­sources
rather than for timber manaqement. In such case the
owner 1 s annual lease fee will be not less than the predicted
timber value the woodland can produce under management durinq the
lease period divided by the number of years in the period.
e. The minimum size of forest acreage in one block and under a
single ownership that could qualify for the progrsm would have
to be determineda A minimum limit of 25 acres is suqgested, but
this could be varied to best fit the situations within different
areas a
la The annual lease fees could be paid throuqh the managing aqencya
However, a seemingly better arrangement would be to have all payments
to the woodland owners be made through the A.s.c.s. which has the fac­ilities
and experience from handling A.C.P. cost-share payments,
The annual lease fee to be paid to any participating woodland owner
would be determined as follows:
(predicted per acre value of har­vestahle
timber at end of contract)
2 .. Years in
contract
period
Per acre
• annual
fee
Example: An owner has 100 acres of woodland. It is overstocked with
a mixture of four softwood species. The age class generally is 40
years. The potential growth rate under intensive management is such
that a competent forester estimates the woodland can yield 22M bd. ft.
in 25 years. The present stumpage price for second-qrowth timber from
small woodlands in the area is $20 per M.
Then, ($20 X 22)
2
.L
• 25 • $8.80 annual per acre lease fee
The other half of the predicted yield value is reserved to cover
the management expenses incurred by the managing aqency in bringing
the woodlarid into full production. If the actual yield exceeds the
predicted yield and/or if the stumpaqe price at time of sale exceeds
the current stumpage price, then the actual value of the harvest ex­ceeds
the predicted value. In such case the owner gets the full amount
by which the actual yield value exceeds the predicted yield value.
Thus, in the case above, if the actual per acre yield turned out to
be 25M rather than 22M and the stumpage price $30/M rather than $20,
the per acre value would be $750. At the time of sale, then the owner
would get a per acre return of $750 minus $440, or $310, in addition
to what he· had collected in annual lease payments.
"'
sjl
,I,.
• -7-
The reasoning behind allowing One-half of the predicted yield value
for management is as foilaws: (a) PO~ee:t service thinning research
in 'the Intiarmbuntain ReQ'iOn has shown the sawlog volume of a stand
of ~ timber type can be at least doubled by a thimdnq program
started before stagnation from competition seta in. Therefore, if
one-half or more of the predicted yield value is due to intensive
management applied by the managing agency, it appears reasonable that
one-half the predicted yield value could be reserved to -cover manage­ment
coats. (b) If a woodland owner's contract runs in excess of 20
years, his annual lease payments will, if invested at 5 percent inter­est,
grow into an amount that approximates or exceeds the predicted
yield value. In the example above, the $8.80 annual lease fee invested
to earn 5 percent interest over the 25-year contract period would
accumulate an amount of $440.98, exceedinq the predicted yield value
by approximately $1. Without the program that would provide for _payment
of the annual lease fees, the owner presumably would have to wait the
25-year period for woodland income, or cut his timber prematurely.
Therefore, it seems fair to consider his total income from the annual
lease payments as beinq their accumulated value at a reasonable (secure)
rate of interest at the end of the contract period. Since one-half
of the predicted yield value paid in equal annual lease fees over a
contract period exceeding 20 years will at 5 percent interest accumulate
an amount that equals or exceeds the total Predicted yield value, the
half-an4-half split (one-half for the owner and one-half for management
costs) of the predicted yield value seems fair and logical ••
Instances wherein merchantable timber would be cut in the interest of
good management before the end of 20 years from the date of the agree­ment,
it would seem fair to allow for management 2.5: percent of the
stumpage value for each year elapsed since the agreement was signed.
Thus, if at the end of 10 years following the date of agreement a
coaaercial thinning is made that yields 4M bd. ft. per acre worth $20/M,
the owner would receive $60 and the other $20 would be allocated for
management and marketing costs.
4. WOOdlands brouqht under intensive management would be much leas sub­ject
to dami!tqe from fire, insects and diseases than unmanaged stands.
Intensive management would practically eliminate fire hazard from slash
within a stand. Elimination of all weakened or unhealthy trees would
greatly increase a woodland's resistance to damaging insect or disease
attack. Therefore, it should be possible to obtain low-cost woodland
protection insurance as a feature of the program, assuming that rather
large acreages of private woodlands in many states participated in the
program.
E. Organization and Costs. The cost estimates in the following chart are
intended to include travel expenses, unemployment compensation and other
expenses. There is a possibility that one office and one secretary could
serve two units. It is estimated that a crew of this size should have a
2s,ooo-acre unit completely worked over in 10 years. The siJ$e of the total
crew could then be reduced by 5 to 7 men because maintenance of the unit
throWJh repeated thinning& and comercial cuts would not require as much
input as was needed during the first 10 years to bring the unit under inten­sive
manaqement.
This ia an orqanization that seems feasible, with estimated costs on a
25,000-acre unit:
...
'' i
•
"
State Level Managing Agency
_(_responsible to U.S.D.A.
Program Director
{over 10 or more supervisors)
I
I '
Area Supervisor
:(over
10 or ~re Unit Foresters
Unit Porester*
Forestry
'l'echnicians · (2
I t;'.,!:"~3l men! I
I Secretary I '--- . and Office .
-a-
Total
budgOt
$ 22,000
18,500
15,000
18,000
210,800
8,500
TOTAL
Cost per
2S,ooo-acre
unit
$ 220
1,850
lS,ooo
lS,OOO
210,800
s,soo
$254,370
*Size of a unit that a managinq forester could feasibly handle would
depend upon the average size of woodlands in the area. The &\199&&ted
2S,OOo-acre unit is based on an average woodland size of 100 acres.
The unit could be larger in areas where the average size of woodlands
is larger.
Different approaches could be taken toward starting the annual ·lease payments:
1. Sign owners up only as fast as the work can be done. Lease payments
to start when contract is signed. This would mean that no lease pay­ments
would. be paid for more than a short period of woodland in an un­improved
condition.
2. Sign all interested woodland owners as quickly aa possible. Pay
1/2 of lease fee on unimproved portion of woodland, full fee on that
which has been worked. Pro-rate the work of the improvement crews among
the owners signed up. Thus if a full 25,000 acres are signed to complete
a unit and :the crews can cover 2500 acres per year, then theoretically
each owner gets 1/10 of his woodland improved each year.
...,
' I"
.~ . • '
•
-9-
3. Sign owners as rapidly as possible and pay full lease fee from
beginning. This would be the most costly approach •
If lease fees averaged $10 per acre, the fees under 11 above would be
$25,000 the first year and qraduate t6 $250,000 in the lOth year. Under
12 they would start at $137,500 on a full unit of 25,000 acres and graduate
to $250,000. Under 13 the level would start and remain at $250,000.
Total annual cost of a unit would ranqe between $275,000 and $525,000, de­pending
upon the approach taken to fee payments and/or the length of time
the urii t had been opera tinq. If 100 million acres were brouqht under such a
program, the annual cost would be somewhere between 1.1 billion and 2.1
billion dollars.
It is important to stress that this would not be a government subsidy or give­away
program. Subste.ntial government funding would be needed to get the pro­gram
underway. HoweVer, within a period of 30 years, the proqram should be­come
virtually self-supporting through the income for management that would
result from allocating one-half of the predicted yield value of the timber
crops to cover management costa. Government fultding would decrease as the
woodlands under the proqram began to yield a flow of products, and it could
become altogether unnecessary within 30 years.
A proqram of this nature should undoubtedly give first priority in any area
to those portions of the small-private woodlands that already have stands
of trees in need of management. Second priority would be reforeatation.of
areas now without suitable tree stands. The concern then becanes: can the
program still be self-supporting when the contract period must cover the
entire rotation period?
Estimates based on information for northern Idaho indicates:
a. Where the program would have to start with preparation of the
land for planting, poor sites (whereon the expected yield in 60
years would be less than 14,000 board feet per acre under inten-sive
management) could not be expected to pay off in a monetary
sense, for in most cases the amount that would have to be invested
for an intensive level of management would exceed the expected return
to the managing agency. Thus, the only way it could be said that the
program effort on such lands would "pay off11 from the government's
(or society's) viewpoint would be through consideration of other bene­fits
that would accrue: increased esthetic value, improved water­sheds,
greater recreational value, more productive wildlife habitiat,
etc. The low annual lease fee for such lands under rotation-period
contract might discourage their owners from participating in the
proqram.
b. On average sites (those capable of producing 14M to 21M board
feet in 60 years under intensive management), the cost incurred
for management should be within the expected return to the managing
aqency. It is possible that with efficient administration of the
program on average sites, the management costs could be returned
with an interest rate of on-half percent to one percent.
c. On good sites (capable of a production greater than 21M board
feet in 60 years), the management costs should all be returned with
about 2 percent interest. Thus, in the instances of most private
1
,~, ' . ,
'
-lo-
• woodlands, even when the program has to start with preparation of
the land, comparison of estimated management coste and expected
returns make it appear to 1:>a a little better than a matter of just
getting bac::k the money our society would invest in making the
lands mqre productive.
In a sense this suqqested management program for small-private wood­lands
could be conaic1ered a woodland owner's management mutual that
would be operated for them under the auspices of qovernrnent. Every
participating owner undoubtedly would derive more income from his
woodland than he would by making the needed management investments
on his own. Por the managinq agency the slight excess that some
woodlands would yield over the actual management coats would possibly
cover the dabit that could result from qreater costa on other wood­lands.
If in implementing such a program there was a strong objec­tive
to make it become economically self-supporting, the best policy
would be to brinq the most productive woodland sites under intensive
management first, then expand the proqram to less productive sites.
F. SUD!!!UY'. A sugqested management proqram for small-private woodlands in
the United States ia presented. The proqram design is to have a reliable
manaqinq agency be responsible for applying the needed woodland improvement
practices and for the marketing of woodland products tbrouqh contracts with
the individual woodland owners. Participati,.nq owners would receive annual
income through lease fees t>aaed on the predicted productivity of their
woodlands under intenaive management. The program should eventUally become
self~supporting through allocation of one-half of the predicted yield value
of each woodland to cOver management coats. Important results of the pro­qram
would bez significant improvement of environmental quality, increased
incomes and employment opportunities in rural areas, improved economic
situations in rural areas, qreatly improved conservation of the important
small-private woodland resource, and vastly increased wood production to
help meet the nation's needs for wood.
l
,~,
",t,l
(
UNITED 5TATE~p~~~ULTURE
c:::::::::ioREST SFRVI ,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2:0250
IN REPl. Y REFE:R TO
Honorable Len B. Jordan
United States Senate
Dear Senator Jordan:
JAN 3
2710
1972 ~
On January 8, 1967, and again on January 26, 1968, you and thirteen other
Senators joined in a letter to us regarding winter-sports fees to be paid
by concessioners operating on National Forest lands under S£ecial-use
permit. You specifically asked that we not apply a proposed new fee
system to winter-sports areas until a joint Forest Service-Industry
study could be carried out. We agreed to re-examine the basic infor­mation
behind the system and to verify and, if appropriate, to modify
the critical fee-determining elements of the system.
Joining with the winter-sports industry as represented by the National
Ski Areas Association and the National Forest Recreation Association,
all Forest Service permittees and a large number of private operators
were given a questionnaire seeking financial information to add to that
we had already collected. The response from Forest Service permittees
was incomplete, but after repeated efforts, a 40-percent response was
finally secured and the data was analyzed.
While we found the basic premise of the original system to be sound,
the additional information enabled us to develop fee rates for the
lines of business that are unique to winter-sports areas: ski lifts,
tows, and ski schools. This makes it possible to apply the full
Graduated Rate Fee System, now used for other concessioner develop­ments,
to winter sports. This system recognizes the business mix of
each individual area as was requested by the industry.
The enclosed report describes the study process and includes specific
recommendations for a breakeven point and fee rates, to be applied in
the Graduated Rate Fee System, for lift, tow, and ski school income.
A fee rate base of 3 percent is recommended in the report based on
the profit ratios and the breakeven point developed in the study.
However, the study compares the results of this rate with profit
experience for several kinds of businesses with a wide range of con­ditions.
This, in my judgment, does not fully reflect some of the
peculiarities of the winter-sports business carried out on, or in
conjunction with, National Forest land under special-use permit.
®
2
Winter-sports operators holding winter-sports permits are required to
provide non-income producing services or facilities for the public
which the fully private operator would not necessarily install. This
is a matter upon which the industry has expressed particular concern.
Further, public recreation is provided by the operator without Govern­ment
capital investment and it is essential to maintain a healthy
industry if it is to continue serving the public. In view of these
factors and the inherent high risk involved in a weather-oriented
business, I am establishing a rate of 2 percent, rather than the
recommended 3 percent, which would be effective when sales are equal
to twice the breakeven point. Above that point the average rate
increases in relation to the additional sales reflecting productivity
of the site and, therefore, value of the use. Below that point, the
effective rate would range downward to 1 percent.
I am now instructing Forest Service field officers to begin imple­menting
the report recommendations, as adjusted above, in all new,
modified, or reissued winter-sports permits effective February I,
1972. This scheduling will make the system available to those who
have asked for it and who qualify, in time for the 1972-1973 ski
season. Implementation will be effected so as to conform with the
President's Economic Program.
A fact sheet on Application of the Graduated Rate Fee System to' Winter
Sports Operations which we plan to use in responding to inquiries is
enclosed,
Sincerely,
ff?tJ (i /0 /J';{/jl
'--""Uc.>d~c( V. CA//
ED11' ~ "q_D p, C'!: 1 F1 --.,
:.J "'-
Chief t f.J:r•;,;1, sc:-·ricEI
Enclosures
WILDLIFE HABITAT RESEARCH
Wildlife habitat research in the West continues to lag considerably
behind other areas of wildland research. Of the seven activities listed
under wildlife habitat research only four were funded prior to fiscal
year 1972. In addition to the units shown, two additional research units
are planned for the future. These are:
I. Fisheries Habitat Ecology, Juneau, Alaska
Priority Needs: $150,000 to conduct research to identify stream
environmental factors that govern (1) production potential and (2) longevity
of the salmon habitat improvement procedure.
2. Wildlife Habitat Ecology-Westside, Olympia, Washington
Priority Needs: $200,000 to undertake research to relate wildlife
habitat requirements to changing patterns of vegetation cover produced by
timber harvest and gradually modified by the new forest. This research
is needed to understand the basic habitat response to various silvicultural
and other land use practices used or likely to be used.
It is apparent that if critical big-game ranges and other wildlife
habitats are to be properly restored, considerable research attention will
have to be directed to the development of improved forest and range shrubs.
Much can be accomplished by a research effort that concentrates on
rigorous selection and breeding of the superior individual shrub plants that
occur naturally. An increase in fiscal year 1972 of $65,000 at Provo, Utah,
2
and $85, 000 at Reno, Nevada, has allowed these units to expand these
research programs to meet the critical need for improved shrub cover.
However, this increased effort still falls substantially short of the pro­gram
required to meet this critical need. These are the only major
shrub genetics and improvement research programs presently planned.
They have westernwide significance,
Modern laboratory facilities are also critically needed at Provo to
facilitate the major research program on shrub genetics and improve-ment
that is planned. The type of facilities required for efficient and
productive research must allow the study of genetic makeup of shrubs
and their physiological requirements, relation of harsh range environ­ments
to seed germination and development, photosynthesis and respiration,
food storage and depletion, and relation of various plant species and
communities to their environment, Funds were provided in fiscal year
1967 for planning the Shrub Improvement Laboratory. Current con­struction
cost is estimated to be $760, 000.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL. TURE
FOREST SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250
IN REPLY REFER TO
Honorable Len B. Jordan
United States Senate
Dear Senator Jordan:
2320
JUL 2 1971
This is in reply to your recent referral of a letter from Mr. Ronald L.
Horner of Caldwell, Idaho. Mr. Horner has made a list of ten items which
are seen as problems by the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association. We
will respond to these in the order presented by Mr. Horner.
1. Inconsistency in Forest Service management policy between Regions.
We agree that there should be consistency in managing Forest Service
Wildernesses. Regions One and Four are currently holding joint meetings
and exchanging correspondence for the purpose of developing consistent
practices for management of Wildernesses and Primitive Areas. Because
of different conditions which may exist within individual Wildernesses,
Primitive Areas, and Regions, management policy may not always be exactly
the same. However, these differences, when they occur, should be explained
to the people who use the areas. The important thing is that the outfitters
and Forest Officers must work together in preserving wilderness values as
the Wilderness Act requires.
2. A meeting with Regions One and Four with a delegation from the Out­fitters
in Idaho to present our views and work towards the SAME
management policy.
Both Regional Foresters have expressed their willingness to meet a
group designated by the Idaho Outfitters and Guides. If a committee
can be delegated, a meeting can be arranged.
3. Wilderness Bill permits outfitting and guiding in wilderness areas
but Forest Service regulations make outfitting in wilderness areas
economically impossible.
Mr. Horner points out that the Wilderness Act of 1964 makes a special
allowance for the commercial services provided by outfitters. He feels
that complying with Forest Service regulations for outfitters will increase
the cost of such trips beyond the means of most people.
®
2
In establishing the National Wilderness Preservation System, the Congress,
in the Wilderness Act, gave direction that Wildernesses shall be adminis­tered
. . . in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use
and enjoyment as Wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of
these areas, and the preservation of their wilderness character .... " The
Act then defined wilderness as an area where the earth and its community
of life are untrammeled by man, and where man is a visitor who does not
remain. Wilderness was further defined as undeveloped Federal land retain­ing
its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or
human habitation and which is protected and managed so as to preserve its
natural condition.
The Act goes on to prohibit commercial enterprise in Wilderness except as
specifically provided in the Act. It specifically provides that 11corruner­cial
services may be performed ... to the extent necessary for activities
which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes
of the area.''
The problem toward which Forest Service regulations are directed is one of
protecting the wilderness resource as defined in the Act. The point that
a special allowance is made by the Act for outfitting recreation use is
valid up to the point that such activity jeopardizes the wilderness char­acter
which the Act directs shall be preserved. The regulations which
Mr. Horner questions are those which are designed to assure an enduring
resource of wilderness without permanent improvements or human habitation,
and where the imprint of man's work is substantially unnoticeable.
4. If Outfitters comply with new regulations, the cost of outfitter ser­vices
will have to be increased to where the average person will not
be able to afford to use an outfitter.
The dismantling and storage of temporary facilities may incur some
additional costs. It is difficult for us to visualize that these addi­tional
costs would seriously affect the total cost of a pack trip.
5. Outfitters need minimal permanent facilities, including corrals, hitch­racks,
toilets, and tent frames. These are not allowed under new
Wilderness rules.
We agree that permanent facilities in Wilderness are not permitted
by the Act and regulations. We must work toward temporary facilities
which do not detract from the wilderness resource.
6. As the outfitter serves by far the largest majority of Wilderness area
users, they should be granted some privileges not granted individual
users.
The outfitter may serve the majority of users for specific Wildernesses;
nationally, the majority of wilderness users do not use packer and guide
services.
3
7. To provide utilization without destruction of Wilderness areas, ade­quate
trails and camping facilities must be permitted.
We agree that some trail construction may be necessary for optimum
distribution of users within National Forest Wildernesses. Camping
facilities are usually structures which are items of man's works that are
noticeable - features which the Act does not allow. They are considered
to be convenience items which are non-conforming to wilderness values.
8. Outfitters' clients, back-packers, and other users do not realize the
extent and meaning of the Wilderness Bill of 1964. This applies to
most fellow Americans. If a clear understanding of the Bill had been
known to everyone, such a Bill would never have been passed.
The development of the 1964 Wilderness Act was the result of many years
of effort on the part of a large number of people. Several hearings were
conducted, and the legislation received a great deal of publicity. We
believe the Act does reflect the desires of the majority of Americans in
terms of what wilderness is and the kind of activities to be permitted
within the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Primitive Areas in Idaho are being reviewed as to their suitability or
nonsuitability for designation as wilderness. The review process provides
for public hearings at which comments are received and used in making
Forest Service recommendations for wilderness to the Secretary of Agricul­ture
and the President. Congress then considers the proposals recommended
as wilderness. We believe the continuing process of public involvement in
Primitive Area reclassification as wilderness provides all segments of the
interested public with the opportunity to understand what such designation
means. It also provides opportunity for these people indicated by
Mr. Horner to point out their problems under wilderness constraints and to
be heard by the Forest Service and the Congress regarding designation of
wildernesses.
9. Outfitters' clients and other visitors to these areas expect the minimal
sanitation facilities necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of
the public in which area they serve. All these are prohibited by
wilderness management.
We agree that minimal sanitary facilities may be necessary at some
places in Wildernesses. However, we do not agree that there can or should
be permanent toilet or water development structures. These facilities
detract from the primeval character of the land and are signs of human
habitation.
4
10. Unless laws, rules, and regulations are changed, the outfitters will be
restricted so much in Wilderness areas that they cannot survive.
This is a rather difficult statement for us to evaluate. There are many
outfitters and guides operating successfully throughout the National Forest
Wildernesses under existing laws, regulations, and rules. We do not know
of any specific reason why the Idaho Outfitters and Guides cannot adapt
their operations to meet Wilderness regulations and continue in business.
The Forest Service recognizes the value of the services given to wilderness
users and desires that this service continue.
We believe that Mr. Guth's point is covered in our response to Mr. Horner's
question number three.
Sincerely,
Ck~~
E. W. SCHULTZ
Deputy Chief
Enclosure

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

The contents of this item, including all images and text, are for personal, educational, and non-commercial use only. The contents of this item may not be reproduced in any form without the express permission of Boise State University Special Collections and Archives. For permissions or to place an order, please contact the Head of Special Collections and Archives at (208) 426-3958 or archives@boisestate.edu.

Full Text

UNOTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGROCUL T~ Ptg o ~
FOREST SERVICE
Teton National Forest, Box 1888, Jackrs.o·n,- .W-y-oming. ,6 3001' ,-,
~} ., 2310
March 1, 1972
r
Honorable Len B. Jordan
Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510 e
L
Dear Len:
The Forest Service is making a national review of undeveloped areas
on National Forest land. As part of this review, the Teton National
Forest has completed a preliminary inventory and has identified 29
areas totaling about 742,000 acres.
During the next month and a half, public meetings will be held to
obtain public sentiment and recommendations on how these areas should
be managed. Written statements will be received until April 7, 1972
for consideration. The enclosed packet of information concerning
this study and analysis was sent to approximately 125 individuals and
organizations in Wyoming and throughout the United States inviting
comments.
The packet is provided for your information. If you wish to make
specific comments or recommendations, of course, they would be most
welcome too.
Final results of the analysis will be announced by the Chief of the
Forest Service shortly after June 30, 1972.
Sincerely,
\.M-(=~
cflARLES T, COSTON
Forest Supervisor
Enclosures
IWJG-11 (1/69)
·~ ;
\
A SUGGESTED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
POR PRIVATE FORESTS
IN THE UNITED STATES
A. Forward. OUtlined herein is a suggested management program for private
forests in the United States. The program concept was originally developed
by Vernon H. Burlison, University of Idaho Extension Forester, as a proposal
to consider for small-private woodlands. The original program suggestion
was critically reviewed by the Idaho Interagency Forestry Committee11, by the
Forestry Committee of the Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts,
plus several other organizations and many individuals. This draft incor­porates
constructive &UtJ9estions made by those Who reviewed the proposed
program.
In the design of a public program to obtain improved management on private
forests, the matter of its fairness to all concerned interests must be con­sidered.
noes it infringe upon the individual rights of private forest
owners? Does it reduce work opportunities for private consulting foresters?
Does it harm local governments through an adverse effect an the tax base?
Does it hinder wood industries in their procurement of raw materials? Does
it reduce values and uses (recreation, wildlife, watershed, esthetic) the
general public might reasonably expect from private forests for given oon-siderat~?
·
It was recognized in the development of this proposed program that (1) the
flow of benefits from private forests can be greatly increased by more inten­sive
management and (2) the diseconomies of small-private fOrest ownership
virtually preclude long-term investments in forest practices. The contention
is: Society through government can give to small-private forest owners
assistance that will make long-term management of woodlands practical and it
can be done in a manner that is fair to all concerned interests.
Valid pUblic uses of and benefits from private forests can be achieved with­out
infringement upon individual owners' rights. The management integrity
of owners can be protected rather than their being forced into untimely
timber sales or subdivision of their lands for short-term economic gain.
Management commensurate with land capability can be applied by consulting
foresters providing a large share of the needed professional assistance and
private contracting crews doing the woods work. The woodland tax base can
be improved and rural economy strengthened.
The suggested proqram is based on these tenets:
1. The nation's increasing needs for wood, plus other forest products
and uses, cannot adequately be met without markedly increasing the
level of productivity from small-private woodlands.
l)
The Idaho Interagency Forestry Committee represents all the agencies
that have direct proqram interest in small-private forestry: Western WOOd
Products Association, the Northern aM Intermountain R89iona of the United
States Forest Service, SOil Conservation Service, Farmers HOme Administration,
Rural Environmental Assistance Program, Bureau of Land Management, Forestry
Division of the Idaho Department of Public Lands, Idaho Association of SOil
Conservation oi,tricts, Idaho Department of·Pish an4 Game, the Cooperative
Extension serVice, and the Forest, Wildlife & Range Experiment Station of the
University of Idaho. The Committee promotes interagency cooperation and
coordination of effort in small-private forestry programs.
. .,.
.I
)
-2-
2. various reasons a large majority of small-private owners are
unable to apply the intensive level of manaqement needed to make
their woodlands produce close to what they are capable of producing.
3. Manaqement of forests for sustained wood production in most in­stances
has a beneficial influence upon their other resource values:
soil protection, watershed, wildlife, recreation, foraqe, esthetics.
4. Due to 11 - t3 above, it appears reaaonabl8 that our society
(throuqh ita qovernment) could offer to the small-private woodland
owners a proqram designed to accomplish the needed increase in wood•
lane! productivity and to provide increased woodland income to owners.
B. Pmram Juatification. These facta are believed to justify the need for
serious consideration of implementinq a pro~ram of the type herein sugqested:
1. People of the United States are strongly aware of the great need
for upqrading the quality of our environment and for making better
use of our natural renewable resources. Broad scale intenaive manage­ment
of a large segment of the nation's small-private woodlands would;
a. greatly increase woodland esthetic values,
b. reduce aoil erosion losses on woodlands,
c. benefit various forms of wildlife throuqh resultinq improve­ment
of their habitats,
d. result in better protection of watersheds, thereby improvinq
stream r89'imen, aquatic habitat and water quality.
e. enhance woodland recreational values,
f. contribute to improved air quality because well-managed
woodlands with vigorous trees are more efficient oxygen pro­ducers
than are woodlands in poor candition,
g. qreatly reduce timber losses on woodlands to fire, insecta
and diseases.
2. The nation needs liiOOd. Predictions are that twice aa much wood will
be needed by the year 2000 as was used in 1968. It is contended. that
our future wood needs cannot be met without greatly increasing the pro­duction
on a substantial portion of the 300,000,000 acres of small­private
woodlands in bhia coUJ\try. (NOTE: 'I'he small-private woodlAnds
constitute 59 percent of our commercial forest lands, contain 38 percent
of the growing stock, and yield 49 percent of the cut. These fiqures
show that the timber-producing capacity of a large segment of our forest
lan4 is being further depleted.. On the other hand., the small-private
forests largely occupy sites with higher productive potential than other
ownership classes. Under intensive management these small private for­ests
could be brouqht to a level of production by the year 2000 which
could supply a very significant portion of our total estimated needs
for wood. This would be at a growth level within reasonable attainment
under intensive management.)
3. Rural ~conomy n.,a. to be strengthened.
-~
,,
-3-
a• Rural development is one of the foremost needs of the nation
--improved levels of income, increased job opportunities, and
better livinq conditions. Many of the areas most in need of
rural development have significant acreages of small-private
woodlands. This proqram should have the effect of greatly re­ducing
the movement of low-inc:ome rural people to urban slums.
Each 25,000-acre unit under the program would create about 35
full-time jobs, 31 of which would be woods laborers (these
visualized as small private contracting crews), in areas that
are traditionally low income and that are now making use of
special federal assistance programs. The labor force that
would be needed for the program makes it appear feasible that
the woodland management proqram could be coordinated with the
proposed youth corps program. If two-thirds of the small­private
woodlands were to be brought under intensive management,
the task would be sufficient to employ 208,000 laborers indef­initely.
In addition to the employment potential, the program
would generate much additional economic activity due to the
increased needs for many types of woods equipment and various
other materials and services required by woods workers.
b. Income levels of small-private woodland owners wouid be sig­nificantly
increased through the annual lease fees based on
their woodlands' predicted yields under intensive management.
It also seems very likely that the higher quality of timber and
the opportunity for poolinq woodland harvest cuts to make larger
volume sales should also improve woodland owners' incomes.
(!Q!!: This program should have high appeal to owners because
it does provide them an annual income from their woodlands which
should be much more desirable than infrequent periodic returns;
also, it would guarantee that needed management practices would
be applied on cooperators' woodlands, another very desirable
feature since most owners would like to see their woodlands
being managed. At meetings and through a mailed questionnaire
in three northern Idaho counties, a significant number of wood­land
owners have indicated they would participate in this program
if it were implemented.)
c. Wood industries that procure raw materials from small-private
woodland owners would be benefitted because they eould each deal
with one or a few management units rather than with dozens to
hundreds of individual owners. They soon would be getting higher
quality products due to the effects of management.
4. Programs that have offered educational assistance, technical advice
and services, and cost-share incentives have not significantly improved
the level of management practiced on small-private woodlands. It is
unlikely that these approaches will ever be effective with a larqe
majority of small-private woodland owners because the actual application
of management is still left to the individual owner as his responsib­ility.
Most woodland owners cannot apply management on an intensive
scale due to one or more of the following reasons:
a. Many owners, even though they are conservation minded, do
not have the time to do the needed management work in their
woodlands due to the requirements of their farm or other
business, their job or ~fession.
·-,
1
.~f
-4-
b. sane owners cannot do their. woodland work due to age or
health reasons.
e. Others are absentee owners who cannot personally care for
their woodland due to the distance between where they live
and where their woodlands are located.
d. Very few woodland owners are financially able to have the
needed work in their woodlands done by hire and carry that
cost as an investment until they can harvest a timber crop.
Those who could afford it do not find lonq-terrn woodland
management investments attractive due to the expected low
rate of interest return, the fixed nature of the investment
until the timber becomes merchantable, an4 the risks (fire,
insects, diseases, storms or weather, and uncertainty regardinq
timber prices) incurred for the period of the investment.
e. Due to financial needs, woodland owners sometimes are forced
to c:ut their woodlands prematurely or to overcut them, even
though they may have been trying to practice gooc:! management:
i.e., they are forced to compromise their management integrity.
5. At the beginning this program would complement rather than duplicate
on-going programs of assistance to small-private woodland owners. In
some areas it would eventually lessen the need for or even supplant
some ~esent forme of assistance, in which cases the unneeded assistance
should be withdrawn.
6. This program would be effective toward the implementation of several
of the recOCDmendations made by the PUblic Land Law Review COIIUilission.
7. Though the initial coat of implementing this program might appear to
be high, all public money invested should eventually be returned. If
efficiently administered, the program should become self-supporting
within a period of 30 years. (NOTE: Consideration could be given to
providing incentive awards to managing organizatiOns for efficient
administration of the program. This would help insure that the program
would become self-supporting as quickly as possible.)
c. Provisions of the Suggested Prosram. This is mainly what the program
would do:
1. Designate a managing agency or organization for small-private
woodlands.
2. Authorize the managing agency to negotiate long-term management
leases and marketing contracts with small-private woodland owners.
Under such . •greements the managing agency would apply the needed
woodland management practices and provide marketing services. This
would not prohibit any owner from bidding competitively for the job
of implementing the management practices called for on his own
woodland.
3. Prov~de for the payment of annual lease fees to woodland owners
who put their lands under contract with the managing agency, the
amounts of such fees to be determined by the productivity of the
woodlands Under intensive management and the periods of the contracts.
··-,
J I,
• -s-
4. Provide that with justification a woodland owner or his heirs can
buy out his contract :by making reimbursement for the costs of all
mana9ement practices that have been applied. in his woodland and for
all lease fees that have been paid to him, plus 3\ interest compounded
annually from the dates management costs were incurred and lease fees
were paid.
5. Provide insurance against woodland losseis due to fire, inaects,
disease and storm.
6. Provide low interest loans for woodland owners w lO elect to, do
their own woodland manaqement under an approved management plan.
D. Explanation Related to the Provisions. This section .is to help clarify
the meaninq of some of the provisions that were stated briefly above.
1. The managing aqency coul.d :be an established public &c.Jency, such as
the State Forestry Department or its equivalent in Uf!h state where
the proqram became operative. It presently appears t:.lAt the most
appropriate course would be to designate the state roreatry aepartmant
or its equivalent in each state as the state level managing agency~
The state agency could contract for other responsible bodies (such as
cooperatives of woodland owners, forestry asaociations, or private
corporations) to assume the implementation of the program within given
uni ta or areas~
2~ a~ ~he basic management-lease agreement would provide that the
managing agency would assume the responsibility of doing all
thinning and other improvement work needed in the woodland~
It would define the management objectives (i.e., the timber
crops to be produced and the other benefits expected from the
woodland) and provide tba t timber sales would be made under the
auspices of the managing agency with the consent of the owner~
The aqreement would specify the amount of the annual lease fee
to be paid to the owner. A woodland management plan with speci­fications
for the management work to be done would be the basis
for the aqreement which would specify when the various management
jobs would be completed~
b. There would also be an agreement for woodland owners who de­sire
to do their own woodland work and who are competent ·to do
it. Under such agreement the owner would have to develop (with
assistance available) a management plan that would be acceptable
to the managinq agency. The contract would require the owner to
complete his work to specifications acceptable to the managing
agency~ This would be an agre-ement quite similar to the form of
the basic agreement, but specifying the owner rather than the
managing agency as being responsible for the woodland work.
c. Thouqh this proposed program is focused on the problem of low
p~uotivity of small-private woodlands, the concept is appli­cable
to lAr9e private ownerships, indut~trial and otherwise.
Agreements with larqe private owners could be the same general
nature as those negotiated with small owners.
d. Reasonable public use privileges, such as hiking, picnickinq,
camping, hunting and fishing, when allowable would be defined in
~
:•!P
'
-6-
the agreements. Since the lease payments made to owners would
be similar in nature to loans until such times as their timber
is harvested. and since other government loans do not require
recipients to allow public use of their lands, forest land
owners under this program ahould retain the right to r9qulate,
restrict or even prohibit all public uses of their properties.
NOTE: In any instance wherein a wooclland has very qood natural
~lities for outdoor recreation in an area where there is a
definite need for expanded public opportunities for outdoor
recreation, the lease agreement may be wholly for the purpose of
developnent and maintenance of the woodland's recreational re­sources
rather than for timber manaqement. In such case the
owner 1 s annual lease fee will be not less than the predicted
timber value the woodland can produce under management durinq the
lease period divided by the number of years in the period.
e. The minimum size of forest acreage in one block and under a
single ownership that could qualify for the progrsm would have
to be determineda A minimum limit of 25 acres is suqgested, but
this could be varied to best fit the situations within different
areas a
la The annual lease fees could be paid throuqh the managing aqencya
However, a seemingly better arrangement would be to have all payments
to the woodland owners be made through the A.s.c.s. which has the fac­ilities
and experience from handling A.C.P. cost-share payments,
The annual lease fee to be paid to any participating woodland owner
would be determined as follows:
(predicted per acre value of har­vestahle
timber at end of contract)
2 .. Years in
contract
period
Per acre
• annual
fee
Example: An owner has 100 acres of woodland. It is overstocked with
a mixture of four softwood species. The age class generally is 40
years. The potential growth rate under intensive management is such
that a competent forester estimates the woodland can yield 22M bd. ft.
in 25 years. The present stumpage price for second-qrowth timber from
small woodlands in the area is $20 per M.
Then, ($20 X 22)
2
.L
• 25 • $8.80 annual per acre lease fee
The other half of the predicted yield value is reserved to cover
the management expenses incurred by the managing aqency in bringing
the woodlarid into full production. If the actual yield exceeds the
predicted yield and/or if the stumpaqe price at time of sale exceeds
the current stumpage price, then the actual value of the harvest ex­ceeds
the predicted value. In such case the owner gets the full amount
by which the actual yield value exceeds the predicted yield value.
Thus, in the case above, if the actual per acre yield turned out to
be 25M rather than 22M and the stumpage price $30/M rather than $20,
the per acre value would be $750. At the time of sale, then the owner
would get a per acre return of $750 minus $440, or $310, in addition
to what he· had collected in annual lease payments.
"'
sjl
,I,.
• -7-
The reasoning behind allowing One-half of the predicted yield value
for management is as foilaws: (a) PO~ee:t service thinning research
in 'the Intiarmbuntain ReQ'iOn has shown the sawlog volume of a stand
of ~ timber type can be at least doubled by a thimdnq program
started before stagnation from competition seta in. Therefore, if
one-half or more of the predicted yield value is due to intensive
management applied by the managing agency, it appears reasonable that
one-half the predicted yield value could be reserved to -cover manage­ment
coats. (b) If a woodland owner's contract runs in excess of 20
years, his annual lease payments will, if invested at 5 percent inter­est,
grow into an amount that approximates or exceeds the predicted
yield value. In the example above, the $8.80 annual lease fee invested
to earn 5 percent interest over the 25-year contract period would
accumulate an amount of $440.98, exceedinq the predicted yield value
by approximately $1. Without the program that would provide for _payment
of the annual lease fees, the owner presumably would have to wait the
25-year period for woodland income, or cut his timber prematurely.
Therefore, it seems fair to consider his total income from the annual
lease payments as beinq their accumulated value at a reasonable (secure)
rate of interest at the end of the contract period. Since one-half
of the predicted yield value paid in equal annual lease fees over a
contract period exceeding 20 years will at 5 percent interest accumulate
an amount that equals or exceeds the total Predicted yield value, the
half-an4-half split (one-half for the owner and one-half for management
costs) of the predicted yield value seems fair and logical ••
Instances wherein merchantable timber would be cut in the interest of
good management before the end of 20 years from the date of the agree­ment,
it would seem fair to allow for management 2.5: percent of the
stumpage value for each year elapsed since the agreement was signed.
Thus, if at the end of 10 years following the date of agreement a
coaaercial thinning is made that yields 4M bd. ft. per acre worth $20/M,
the owner would receive $60 and the other $20 would be allocated for
management and marketing costs.
4. WOOdlands brouqht under intensive management would be much leas sub­ject
to dami!tqe from fire, insects and diseases than unmanaged stands.
Intensive management would practically eliminate fire hazard from slash
within a stand. Elimination of all weakened or unhealthy trees would
greatly increase a woodland's resistance to damaging insect or disease
attack. Therefore, it should be possible to obtain low-cost woodland
protection insurance as a feature of the program, assuming that rather
large acreages of private woodlands in many states participated in the
program.
E. Organization and Costs. The cost estimates in the following chart are
intended to include travel expenses, unemployment compensation and other
expenses. There is a possibility that one office and one secretary could
serve two units. It is estimated that a crew of this size should have a
2s,ooo-acre unit completely worked over in 10 years. The siJ$e of the total
crew could then be reduced by 5 to 7 men because maintenance of the unit
throWJh repeated thinning& and comercial cuts would not require as much
input as was needed during the first 10 years to bring the unit under inten­sive
manaqement.
This ia an orqanization that seems feasible, with estimated costs on a
25,000-acre unit:
...
'' i
•
"
State Level Managing Agency
_(_responsible to U.S.D.A.
Program Director
{over 10 or more supervisors)
I
I '
Area Supervisor
:(over
10 or ~re Unit Foresters
Unit Porester*
Forestry
'l'echnicians · (2
I t;'.,!:"~3l men! I
I Secretary I '--- . and Office .
-a-
Total
budgOt
$ 22,000
18,500
15,000
18,000
210,800
8,500
TOTAL
Cost per
2S,ooo-acre
unit
$ 220
1,850
lS,ooo
lS,OOO
210,800
s,soo
$254,370
*Size of a unit that a managinq forester could feasibly handle would
depend upon the average size of woodlands in the area. The &\199&&ted
2S,OOo-acre unit is based on an average woodland size of 100 acres.
The unit could be larger in areas where the average size of woodlands
is larger.
Different approaches could be taken toward starting the annual ·lease payments:
1. Sign owners up only as fast as the work can be done. Lease payments
to start when contract is signed. This would mean that no lease pay­ments
would. be paid for more than a short period of woodland in an un­improved
condition.
2. Sign all interested woodland owners as quickly aa possible. Pay
1/2 of lease fee on unimproved portion of woodland, full fee on that
which has been worked. Pro-rate the work of the improvement crews among
the owners signed up. Thus if a full 25,000 acres are signed to complete
a unit and :the crews can cover 2500 acres per year, then theoretically
each owner gets 1/10 of his woodland improved each year.
...,
' I"
.~ . • '
•
-9-
3. Sign owners as rapidly as possible and pay full lease fee from
beginning. This would be the most costly approach •
If lease fees averaged $10 per acre, the fees under 11 above would be
$25,000 the first year and qraduate t6 $250,000 in the lOth year. Under
12 they would start at $137,500 on a full unit of 25,000 acres and graduate
to $250,000. Under 13 the level would start and remain at $250,000.
Total annual cost of a unit would ranqe between $275,000 and $525,000, de­pending
upon the approach taken to fee payments and/or the length of time
the urii t had been opera tinq. If 100 million acres were brouqht under such a
program, the annual cost would be somewhere between 1.1 billion and 2.1
billion dollars.
It is important to stress that this would not be a government subsidy or give­away
program. Subste.ntial government funding would be needed to get the pro­gram
underway. HoweVer, within a period of 30 years, the proqram should be­come
virtually self-supporting through the income for management that would
result from allocating one-half of the predicted yield value of the timber
crops to cover management costa. Government fultding would decrease as the
woodlands under the proqram began to yield a flow of products, and it could
become altogether unnecessary within 30 years.
A proqram of this nature should undoubtedly give first priority in any area
to those portions of the small-private woodlands that already have stands
of trees in need of management. Second priority would be reforeatation.of
areas now without suitable tree stands. The concern then becanes: can the
program still be self-supporting when the contract period must cover the
entire rotation period?
Estimates based on information for northern Idaho indicates:
a. Where the program would have to start with preparation of the
land for planting, poor sites (whereon the expected yield in 60
years would be less than 14,000 board feet per acre under inten-sive
management) could not be expected to pay off in a monetary
sense, for in most cases the amount that would have to be invested
for an intensive level of management would exceed the expected return
to the managing agency. Thus, the only way it could be said that the
program effort on such lands would "pay off11 from the government's
(or society's) viewpoint would be through consideration of other bene­fits
that would accrue: increased esthetic value, improved water­sheds,
greater recreational value, more productive wildlife habitiat,
etc. The low annual lease fee for such lands under rotation-period
contract might discourage their owners from participating in the
proqram.
b. On average sites (those capable of producing 14M to 21M board
feet in 60 years under intensive management), the cost incurred
for management should be within the expected return to the managing
aqency. It is possible that with efficient administration of the
program on average sites, the management costs could be returned
with an interest rate of on-half percent to one percent.
c. On good sites (capable of a production greater than 21M board
feet in 60 years), the management costs should all be returned with
about 2 percent interest. Thus, in the instances of most private
1
,~, ' . ,
'
-lo-
• woodlands, even when the program has to start with preparation of
the land, comparison of estimated management coste and expected
returns make it appear to 1:>a a little better than a matter of just
getting bac::k the money our society would invest in making the
lands mqre productive.
In a sense this suqqested management program for small-private wood­lands
could be conaic1ered a woodland owner's management mutual that
would be operated for them under the auspices of qovernrnent. Every
participating owner undoubtedly would derive more income from his
woodland than he would by making the needed management investments
on his own. Por the managinq agency the slight excess that some
woodlands would yield over the actual management coats would possibly
cover the dabit that could result from qreater costa on other wood­lands.
If in implementing such a program there was a strong objec­tive
to make it become economically self-supporting, the best policy
would be to brinq the most productive woodland sites under intensive
management first, then expand the proqram to less productive sites.
F. SUD!!!UY'. A sugqested management proqram for small-private woodlands in
the United States ia presented. The proqram design is to have a reliable
manaqinq agency be responsible for applying the needed woodland improvement
practices and for the marketing of woodland products tbrouqh contracts with
the individual woodland owners. Participati,.nq owners would receive annual
income through lease fees t>aaed on the predicted productivity of their
woodlands under intenaive management. The program should eventUally become
self~supporting through allocation of one-half of the predicted yield value
of each woodland to cOver management coats. Important results of the pro­qram
would bez significant improvement of environmental quality, increased
incomes and employment opportunities in rural areas, improved economic
situations in rural areas, qreatly improved conservation of the important
small-private woodland resource, and vastly increased wood production to
help meet the nation's needs for wood.
l
,~,
",t,l
(
UNITED 5TATE~p~~~ULTURE
c:::::::::ioREST SFRVI ,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2:0250
IN REPl. Y REFE:R TO
Honorable Len B. Jordan
United States Senate
Dear Senator Jordan:
JAN 3
2710
1972 ~
On January 8, 1967, and again on January 26, 1968, you and thirteen other
Senators joined in a letter to us regarding winter-sports fees to be paid
by concessioners operating on National Forest lands under S£ecial-use
permit. You specifically asked that we not apply a proposed new fee
system to winter-sports areas until a joint Forest Service-Industry
study could be carried out. We agreed to re-examine the basic infor­mation
behind the system and to verify and, if appropriate, to modify
the critical fee-determining elements of the system.
Joining with the winter-sports industry as represented by the National
Ski Areas Association and the National Forest Recreation Association,
all Forest Service permittees and a large number of private operators
were given a questionnaire seeking financial information to add to that
we had already collected. The response from Forest Service permittees
was incomplete, but after repeated efforts, a 40-percent response was
finally secured and the data was analyzed.
While we found the basic premise of the original system to be sound,
the additional information enabled us to develop fee rates for the
lines of business that are unique to winter-sports areas: ski lifts,
tows, and ski schools. This makes it possible to apply the full
Graduated Rate Fee System, now used for other concessioner develop­ments,
to winter sports. This system recognizes the business mix of
each individual area as was requested by the industry.
The enclosed report describes the study process and includes specific
recommendations for a breakeven point and fee rates, to be applied in
the Graduated Rate Fee System, for lift, tow, and ski school income.
A fee rate base of 3 percent is recommended in the report based on
the profit ratios and the breakeven point developed in the study.
However, the study compares the results of this rate with profit
experience for several kinds of businesses with a wide range of con­ditions.
This, in my judgment, does not fully reflect some of the
peculiarities of the winter-sports business carried out on, or in
conjunction with, National Forest land under special-use permit.
®
2
Winter-sports operators holding winter-sports permits are required to
provide non-income producing services or facilities for the public
which the fully private operator would not necessarily install. This
is a matter upon which the industry has expressed particular concern.
Further, public recreation is provided by the operator without Govern­ment
capital investment and it is essential to maintain a healthy
industry if it is to continue serving the public. In view of these
factors and the inherent high risk involved in a weather-oriented
business, I am establishing a rate of 2 percent, rather than the
recommended 3 percent, which would be effective when sales are equal
to twice the breakeven point. Above that point the average rate
increases in relation to the additional sales reflecting productivity
of the site and, therefore, value of the use. Below that point, the
effective rate would range downward to 1 percent.
I am now instructing Forest Service field officers to begin imple­menting
the report recommendations, as adjusted above, in all new,
modified, or reissued winter-sports permits effective February I,
1972. This scheduling will make the system available to those who
have asked for it and who qualify, in time for the 1972-1973 ski
season. Implementation will be effected so as to conform with the
President's Economic Program.
A fact sheet on Application of the Graduated Rate Fee System to' Winter
Sports Operations which we plan to use in responding to inquiries is
enclosed,
Sincerely,
ff?tJ (i /0 /J';{/jl
'--""Uc.>d~c( V. CA//
ED11' ~ "q_D p, C'!: 1 F1 --.,
:.J "'-
Chief t f.J:r•;,;1, sc:-·ricEI
Enclosures
WILDLIFE HABITAT RESEARCH
Wildlife habitat research in the West continues to lag considerably
behind other areas of wildland research. Of the seven activities listed
under wildlife habitat research only four were funded prior to fiscal
year 1972. In addition to the units shown, two additional research units
are planned for the future. These are:
I. Fisheries Habitat Ecology, Juneau, Alaska
Priority Needs: $150,000 to conduct research to identify stream
environmental factors that govern (1) production potential and (2) longevity
of the salmon habitat improvement procedure.
2. Wildlife Habitat Ecology-Westside, Olympia, Washington
Priority Needs: $200,000 to undertake research to relate wildlife
habitat requirements to changing patterns of vegetation cover produced by
timber harvest and gradually modified by the new forest. This research
is needed to understand the basic habitat response to various silvicultural
and other land use practices used or likely to be used.
It is apparent that if critical big-game ranges and other wildlife
habitats are to be properly restored, considerable research attention will
have to be directed to the development of improved forest and range shrubs.
Much can be accomplished by a research effort that concentrates on
rigorous selection and breeding of the superior individual shrub plants that
occur naturally. An increase in fiscal year 1972 of $65,000 at Provo, Utah,
2
and $85, 000 at Reno, Nevada, has allowed these units to expand these
research programs to meet the critical need for improved shrub cover.
However, this increased effort still falls substantially short of the pro­gram
required to meet this critical need. These are the only major
shrub genetics and improvement research programs presently planned.
They have westernwide significance,
Modern laboratory facilities are also critically needed at Provo to
facilitate the major research program on shrub genetics and improve-ment
that is planned. The type of facilities required for efficient and
productive research must allow the study of genetic makeup of shrubs
and their physiological requirements, relation of harsh range environ­ments
to seed germination and development, photosynthesis and respiration,
food storage and depletion, and relation of various plant species and
communities to their environment, Funds were provided in fiscal year
1967 for planning the Shrub Improvement Laboratory. Current con­struction
cost is estimated to be $760, 000.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL. TURE
FOREST SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250
IN REPLY REFER TO
Honorable Len B. Jordan
United States Senate
Dear Senator Jordan:
2320
JUL 2 1971
This is in reply to your recent referral of a letter from Mr. Ronald L.
Horner of Caldwell, Idaho. Mr. Horner has made a list of ten items which
are seen as problems by the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association. We
will respond to these in the order presented by Mr. Horner.
1. Inconsistency in Forest Service management policy between Regions.
We agree that there should be consistency in managing Forest Service
Wildernesses. Regions One and Four are currently holding joint meetings
and exchanging correspondence for the purpose of developing consistent
practices for management of Wildernesses and Primitive Areas. Because
of different conditions which may exist within individual Wildernesses,
Primitive Areas, and Regions, management policy may not always be exactly
the same. However, these differences, when they occur, should be explained
to the people who use the areas. The important thing is that the outfitters
and Forest Officers must work together in preserving wilderness values as
the Wilderness Act requires.
2. A meeting with Regions One and Four with a delegation from the Out­fitters
in Idaho to present our views and work towards the SAME
management policy.
Both Regional Foresters have expressed their willingness to meet a
group designated by the Idaho Outfitters and Guides. If a committee
can be delegated, a meeting can be arranged.
3. Wilderness Bill permits outfitting and guiding in wilderness areas
but Forest Service regulations make outfitting in wilderness areas
economically impossible.
Mr. Horner points out that the Wilderness Act of 1964 makes a special
allowance for the commercial services provided by outfitters. He feels
that complying with Forest Service regulations for outfitters will increase
the cost of such trips beyond the means of most people.
®
2
In establishing the National Wilderness Preservation System, the Congress,
in the Wilderness Act, gave direction that Wildernesses shall be adminis­tered
. . . in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use
and enjoyment as Wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of
these areas, and the preservation of their wilderness character .... " The
Act then defined wilderness as an area where the earth and its community
of life are untrammeled by man, and where man is a visitor who does not
remain. Wilderness was further defined as undeveloped Federal land retain­ing
its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or
human habitation and which is protected and managed so as to preserve its
natural condition.
The Act goes on to prohibit commercial enterprise in Wilderness except as
specifically provided in the Act. It specifically provides that 11corruner­cial
services may be performed ... to the extent necessary for activities
which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes
of the area.''
The problem toward which Forest Service regulations are directed is one of
protecting the wilderness resource as defined in the Act. The point that
a special allowance is made by the Act for outfitting recreation use is
valid up to the point that such activity jeopardizes the wilderness char­acter
which the Act directs shall be preserved. The regulations which
Mr. Horner questions are those which are designed to assure an enduring
resource of wilderness without permanent improvements or human habitation,
and where the imprint of man's work is substantially unnoticeable.
4. If Outfitters comply with new regulations, the cost of outfitter ser­vices
will have to be increased to where the average person will not
be able to afford to use an outfitter.
The dismantling and storage of temporary facilities may incur some
additional costs. It is difficult for us to visualize that these addi­tional
costs would seriously affect the total cost of a pack trip.
5. Outfitters need minimal permanent facilities, including corrals, hitch­racks,
toilets, and tent frames. These are not allowed under new
Wilderness rules.
We agree that permanent facilities in Wilderness are not permitted
by the Act and regulations. We must work toward temporary facilities
which do not detract from the wilderness resource.
6. As the outfitter serves by far the largest majority of Wilderness area
users, they should be granted some privileges not granted individual
users.
The outfitter may serve the majority of users for specific Wildernesses;
nationally, the majority of wilderness users do not use packer and guide
services.
3
7. To provide utilization without destruction of Wilderness areas, ade­quate
trails and camping facilities must be permitted.
We agree that some trail construction may be necessary for optimum
distribution of users within National Forest Wildernesses. Camping
facilities are usually structures which are items of man's works that are
noticeable - features which the Act does not allow. They are considered
to be convenience items which are non-conforming to wilderness values.
8. Outfitters' clients, back-packers, and other users do not realize the
extent and meaning of the Wilderness Bill of 1964. This applies to
most fellow Americans. If a clear understanding of the Bill had been
known to everyone, such a Bill would never have been passed.
The development of the 1964 Wilderness Act was the result of many years
of effort on the part of a large number of people. Several hearings were
conducted, and the legislation received a great deal of publicity. We
believe the Act does reflect the desires of the majority of Americans in
terms of what wilderness is and the kind of activities to be permitted
within the National Wilderness Preservation System.
Primitive Areas in Idaho are being reviewed as to their suitability or
nonsuitability for designation as wilderness. The review process provides
for public hearings at which comments are received and used in making
Forest Service recommendations for wilderness to the Secretary of Agricul­ture
and the President. Congress then considers the proposals recommended
as wilderness. We believe the continuing process of public involvement in
Primitive Area reclassification as wilderness provides all segments of the
interested public with the opportunity to understand what such designation
means. It also provides opportunity for these people indicated by
Mr. Horner to point out their problems under wilderness constraints and to
be heard by the Forest Service and the Congress regarding designation of
wildernesses.
9. Outfitters' clients and other visitors to these areas expect the minimal
sanitation facilities necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of
the public in which area they serve. All these are prohibited by
wilderness management.
We agree that minimal sanitary facilities may be necessary at some
places in Wildernesses. However, we do not agree that there can or should
be permanent toilet or water development structures. These facilities
detract from the primeval character of the land and are signs of human
habitation.
4
10. Unless laws, rules, and regulations are changed, the outfitters will be
restricted so much in Wilderness areas that they cannot survive.
This is a rather difficult statement for us to evaluate. There are many
outfitters and guides operating successfully throughout the National Forest
Wildernesses under existing laws, regulations, and rules. We do not know
of any specific reason why the Idaho Outfitters and Guides cannot adapt
their operations to meet Wilderness regulations and continue in business.
The Forest Service recognizes the value of the services given to wilderness
users and desires that this service continue.
We believe that Mr. Guth's point is covered in our response to Mr. Horner's
question number three.
Sincerely,
Ck~~
E. W. SCHULTZ
Deputy Chief
Enclosure